Seems this year’s Tour de France couldn’t get past the first week without accusations of doping rearing its ugly head yet again. Mid-week came news that Stefan Schumacher had tested positive for amphetamines after he wrecked his car (I hope it wasn’t a 996 Turbo, that would be a tragedy) after a night on the town. Police tested the erstwhile non-F1 driver and found speed (the drug, that is) in his system. Because the police test wasn’t a doping test, Schumacher was allowed to race at the 2008 edition of the Grande (de)Boucle. Having captured the coveted maillot jaune, he was grilled by reporters about his little driving escapade, so that bit of dirty laundry got its time in the fresh TdF air.
Then came news that the CAS would allow WADA and the UCI to continue their dogged pursuit of Alejandro Valverde, but, well, they’ll hold off for a few months. That’s because they want to wait and see if Spanish authorities will fork over a blood bag from the Operacion Puerto investigation that is believed to contain sangre de AV. Having refused the CAS’ request once, what do you think the chances are that Spain’s police/prosecutors/judiciary are going to give up the goods? Slim to none? That’s my guess. Which, of course, would never put those pesky Puerto rumors to rest. So, as the Tour enters its second week, Alejandro must be just a tad bit nervous about when the next shoe is going to drop.
But wait, there’s more! Yesterday, after the Valverde news broke, came word that the first real doping positive for the Tour occurred — well, to hear most of the media tell it, it was definitely a positive test. Problem is, of course, that the A sample for Manuel “Triki” Beltrán came up positive for EPO (on a urine test). But is it really a positive before the B sample results come back? Whatever the case, Beltrán was sent home — suspended by Liquigas, to be fired if the counteranalysis agrees with the initial results — to ponder his fate. But before he got on a plane for Spain, Beltrán got to spend some time with the local gendarmes.
Exactly what he told the cops is not public knowledge. But most reports say that Beltrán denies having doped, and that he said the same to the police. Bob Roll, however, says otherwise (though he doesn’t cite a source):
Beltran’s team was lucky that it did not get kicked out of the Tour as well. That was because Beltran made a full confession to his transgressions immediately upon receiving the information that he tested positive for EPO.
Now, Bobke’s an entertaining writer and all, and even an entertaining commentator, but no one else is reporting this information, at least, not that I’ve seen. For all his gifts, ol’ Mistah Roll is no Woodward or Bernstein, at least, not as far as I can tell. Beltrán’s parting words as he left France suggest he hasn’t copped a plea, either.
Beltran exited the Tour – and, in all probability, the sport – via Toulouse Airport in the afternoon, destined for the family olive farm in Jaén in southern Spain. His parting words were, to say the least, ambiguous. ‘I wish to express my desire that neither my team nor my colleagues are harmed by these events,’ he said. ‘I will request a test of the B sample and ask that the presumption of innocence be respected until we have the results.’
Anyone who’s just spilled the goods to the gendarmes doesn’t really need to go through the rigmarole of having a B sample test done, wouldn’t you say? Why bother when you’ve already confessed?
Roll and his sidekick Craig Hummer commented this morning about how arrogant and conceited Beltrán must be for doping when all the riders know the emphasis now is on riding clean. Well, lemme see here. Maybe Bob knows something that the rest of us don’t (including, apparently, Beltrán), but there are a few things wrong with teeing off on someone after an A sample comes back positive (not that Bob and Craig are the only ones who’ve done so). That’s the small matter of the B sample. If it comes back negative – voila! no doping violation has occurred. What would Roll and Hummer say if the B sample came back negative? “Oops. My bad.”? Problem is, by the time that’s happened (if it happens), the damage is already done.
It bears pointing out that the EPO urine test is notoriously finicky and difficult. Also, there’s the small matter of a recent study that suggests that either the test isn’t up to scratch, or the labs performing it aren’t, as a certain “Laboratory B” (the German anti-doping lab in Cologne, apparently) had difficulty detecting EPO in subjects who’d been doped.
It is, however, pretty conceited and arrogant to be trash talking someone before the full facts are in. An A sample does not a doping violation make — if the B sample doesn’t agree with the A. Beltrán has the right to a counteranalysis (which, if done by the WADA rules governing the EPO urine test, will be performed at a different lab). But, it’s too easy to pile onto a story like this, isn’t it?
Point is, until the B sample comes back, and unless the B sample confirms the initial result, it’s too soon to be castigating Beltrán or any accused athlete of doping. And even if the B agrees with the A, anti-doping science is not perfect, and we ought to wait until an athlete has exhausted his/her rights to appeal before publicly thrashing them. At least, that’s the way it ought to be.
To his credit, later in today’s coverage, at about 22K to go, Phil Liggett pointed out that we ought to wait until the B sample comes back. Good on you, Phil. Too bad you didn’t say that to Craig and Bob right after they’d unloaded their own bits of verbal conceit.
Of course, no doping scandal in the world of cycling would be complete without some verbal volleys from Pat McQuaid, who’s desperately trying to make the UCI seem relevant after all the in-fighting between the cycling federation, the major organizers, and even WADA. And here he goes:
“When are these idiots going to learn that it’s over?” Pat McQuaid, chief of the International Cycling Union, told The Associated Press by telephone. “They continue to think that they can beat the system. They’re wrong. The system is catching up all the time.
“It is very damaging to the sport. Once more, the sport suffers.”
Gotta wonder: When are the idiots at the UCI going to get the idea that fanning these kinds of flames also damages the sport? My guess: Probably never.
Haven’t heard Dick Pound weigh in on the matter yet. I can only imagine what outrageous quip he’d make. I’m sure some enterprising reporter will eventually get him to speak on the record.
Meanwhile, there’s a story that riders who tested positive at last year’s Tour will be charged with crimes and might go to jail. OK, I’ll bite. If prosecutors were going to charge Vino and Moreni and Iban Mayo with sporting fraud, what the heck took them so long? It’s not as if these stories surfaced yesterday. They’ve been all over the cycling press for a year now! Or is this just another way to show how “tough” the powers that be will be on dopers?
In all the stories I’ve seen on Beltrán the writers have been quick to connect him with Lance Armstrong. (Beltrán was on the Postal/Disco squad from 2003 – 2006.) By implication, what they’re suggesting is that because a number of former teammates of Mr. Seven Wins have tested positive, Mr. Seven Wins must also be guilty of doping. Interesting, but circumstantial, connection. Show me the proof that Armstrong doped, however. Not suggestions or innuendo. Real, solid, hold up in court kind of proof. Otherwise, drop the hearsay and gossip.
Of all the people who might attempt to put the kibosh on such suggestions, the last person I’d expect would be Patrice Clerc, the head of the ASO. And yet…
“I know nothing about that,” Clerc said. “Some of his former teammates had problems, but the problems could have been after they left Armstrong.”
There’s an important point to be made. Just because someone may have tested positive today doesn’t mean that he or she was doping in years gone by. It might be easy to assume that was the case, but it doesn’t necessarily follow. The difference could also be that the rider’s subsequent employer(s) had a formalized doping program. Or, an aging rider might want to squeeze out a few more years in a relatively high-paying job before heading back to the family farm and relative obscurity. Or any of a number of different explanations.
Now, Liquigas’ management is all aghast at the Beltrán positive. But it makes me wonder, if Beltrán really was doping what might they have known? Surely Beltrán wasn’t shooting up all on his own (that is, if he was using EPO). Somebody was helping him. And five’ll get you ten that the somebody or somebodies were connected to the Liquigas team. Perhaps they’re willing to throw Triki under the bus in order to preserve another rider’s chances of winning the Tour or escape a €100,000 fine? Nah, that would never happen. Would it?
Unfortunately, Le Tour does not need the distraction and embarassment of another set of doping scandals. Not when the Tour already has the distraction and embarassment offered by our boycott. In fact, this doping stuff is clearly distracting the ASO — they still haven’t called me to negotiate an end to the boycott. A boycott that’s giving people a reason not to watch a Tour they probably wouldn’t have watched anyway. Hey, ASO! I was HOME most of the day! Do I have to draw you a picture? My number’s in the BOOK.
So, Bob Roll announces that the reason Liquigas is not tossed from the Tour is because Beltran confessed … only it turns out that Beltran is demanding a “B” test. So what’s up, Bob? Was the confession conditional on a confirming “B” test? “Yes, I admit it, I doped,” sobbed a contrite Beltran, “unless of course the “B” test comes back negative, in which case this case was an outrage and I demand an investigation.” Hmm, maybe that would sound better in Spanish. And Bob, since it looks like Beltran has not confessed, when is Liquigas going to be sent packing?
It’s clear that with the bio passport and the UCI sent to the sidelines, cycling has finally turned the corner on its doping past. Of course, they’re doping around the corner too, but at least the corner has been turned.
It is a shame – that the TdeF has turned from THE great yearly event in cycling to nothing more than a cheap soap opera.
Don’t get me wrong people – I like a “cheap soap” as well as the next guy – yeah, we guys are great ones for watching the “soaps” aren’t we?
This year – I’m with Larry – I’m boycotting! Since the TdeF has turned into nothing more then the only “reality show” that has a three week run – it ain’t very difficult to boycott!
In fact Larry – let me suggest that you consider your boycott from this point of view – TdeF equals “reality show” – – – I eventually wound up being grateful that ANY REALITY SHOW has ONLY A THREE WEEK RUN!!! Once I realized this – all my difficulties with boycotting the TdeF seemed to evaporate as quickly as – well to put it bluntly, as FAIRNESS and REAL COMPETITION concepts seems to have evaporated from the TdeF!
Rant – I thank you for keeping us informed on the “information” coming from the foix TdeF – It would seem that the shadow figures holding the rains of ASO and the French Ministry of Sport, along with the UCI and WADA have abducted the REAL TOUR and are trying to pass off this reality junk on the world! I’m not buying into it!
OKAY SO I LIED! I DON’T REALLY LIKE WATCHING REALITY BASED SOAPS!
And if I ever do tune in and watch the FOIX TdeF – I won’t delude myself that I am watching the BEST CYCLING taking place in the entire world. For THIS bit of “reality” I shall NEVER FORGIVE the French and OTHER zealots for destroying my lovely TdeF and for thinking that I am so ignorant that I would not “question” what is going on here – as they systematically disassembled the worlds best pro cycling race.
If you guys think that this is about BELTRAN doping or not – then think again. This is just the beginning of attacks that the “shadow” government is starting to force the Spanish authorities to kowtow to their “authority” – this and NOTHING MORE! Thats right – – they will break anyone who doesn’t ALLOW THEM to foist the reality they insist on.
Or are you of the opinion still, that this is about “fairness and an even playing field in cycling sport?”
Morgan,
You should keep your head colder than that.
The French are for nothing in your blindness.
The real problem are not TDF but Tibet, Soudan War, Irak war, global warming, famin, and so…
TDF is just entertainement, and used by some people to mask the real world problem.
Regards.
Rant,
Despite Beltran has confessed his sin he could have request the testing of B sample.
In case of it comes negative he could say “I was impressed to be arrested by police and I said what they want because I was afraid to be jailed!”
Have you seen Beltran trying to escape the doping test by riding in the field. Why if he is clean?
I am wondering why, if the Spanish authorities have no intention of pursuing the OP affair any further, and also have no intention of cooperating with WADA in the matter, if they still have the blood bag, and if so, why. Destroy the stuff and have done with it.
Jean C.,
It’s possible, what you say. More than once someone has told the police what they want to hear. As for escaping notice by riding in the field — assuming he was doping, that would probably be a smart move. Of course, he’s there to support the team’s captain, right? So he’d likely perform whatever role the directeur sportif assigned him. Clean or not, he’d probably be doing whatever the team asks in order to increase his captain’s chances overall. One would have to ask Liquigas’ DS what Beltran’s role was for the last week to get a better understanding of how Beltran was supposed to be riding and performing at this year’s Tour and why. My biggest objection is similar to what Cedric Vasseur is quoted as saying at CyclingNews.com:
I think he’s right on this. Too bad more in the media don’t make this point clearly in their coverage. Beltran may or may not be guilty, but we can’t fully judge that based on just the A sample result.
Classic title! When looking at my RSS feeds, the title caught my eye and drew me in for a closer look. Larry’s comments are classic like always. I agree with Morgan Hunter that the TDF has really turned into a cheap soap opera and while I don’t mind reading Rant’s well written summary about it, I will continue my boycott of the main event itself. That is until ASO negotiates a settlement with our feared boycott leader Larry. 😉
Jean C,
Well – I did not say that the French are “for nothing” in my eyes – what I did say Is that the French Sport Ministry aided and abetted in the act of ASO’s grab for power in the world of pro cycling – I am BOYCOTTING the soap opera called the TdeF. I am not boycotting France or the French people!
You may “assume” whatever you like as to my “worries” over what is happening in the world – but your assumptions are just that – assumptions.
The abuse of power and position starts at the very smallest of things in human society. The old Tour was a spectacle UNTIL some zealots decided that Armstrong could not have won the tour 7 times without being a doper. Well – if Armstrong was doping and there IS NO HARD PROOF OF THIS – despite how you wish to interpret his performances.
While you may feel comfortable with the “present system” of governance and behavior, of “testing procedures” and the “interpretation of the data” that the governing bodies feel they can get away with – some people don’t – I happen to be one of these that don’t!
So Jean C – welcome to the adult world of “reality ENTERTAINMENT” – congratulation – your country has successfully added to the junk now filling the airwaves.
Meanwhile – I am ENJOYING the game of “boycotting” the TdeF Show. You know – “as nothing but – entertainment.”
Regards back to you.
Morgan:
I am surprised that Jean didn’t catch this. I believe you really mean “faux” TdF, faux meaning false.
William,
Or was Morgan referring to the new Fox “reality” show, “As The Wheel Turns”? 😉 Inquiring minds want to know.
Rant said: “It is … conceited and arrogant to be trash talking someone before the full facts are in.”
And Pat McQuaid said: “When are these idiots going to learn that it’s over?”
Ergo … Pat McQuaid is conceited and arrogant.
I was hoping for “Pat McQuaid is an idiot”, but it’s not in the setup.
Morgan,
Laughable the same Armstrong PR… Are you missing that Festina happened before the first Armstrong win?
When you go to a magic show do you believe everything that you have seen or do you need a proof to not believe it?
Nobody has proved that Santa Claus don’t exist, should we believe in it?
Rant,
Cedric is right but in case of an AAF, police should visit the team hotel and bus… very difficult to avoid the bad news!
There is no choice: only announcing the case !
Jean C –
Meanwhile – I am ENJOYING the game of “boycotting” the TdeF Show. You know – “as nothing but – faux entertainment.”
And Jean C –
For Santa Claus to do his “one-night thing” – I accept that he is doping. But thank god ASO and the French Ministry of Sport have no jurisdiction over him!
Jean C, in all seriousness, my “boycott” is not anti-French. It IS intended to be critical of the policies of the ASO and the AFLD, more so to be critical of the current state of cycling, even more so to be a personal expression of weariness and despair. To be honest, if the Tour of California were taking place right now, I’d be boycotting it, too.
With that said, the ASO and ALFD have control over the Tour. There is no UCI to interfere. The ASO has selected the teams they wanted to race, and even the riders within the teams that they wanted to race, and have excluded teams and riders that they wanted to exclude. They are performing the doping testing that they want to perform, supervised by their choice of agency, with the lab testing being performed by the labs they have selected. It is the ultimate control, and with it comes the ultimate responsibility.
Your point is well taken that in cycling, it’s impossible to wait until a “B” test is complete before you announce the results of the “A” test. On this point, I depart from a lot of my friends here and on TBV. As you point out, if the rider is going to be sent home and the hotel raided by the police, we’re going to know what’s up. I agree, “A” test confidentiality is impossible. So if we can’t have confidentiality, how about transparency? How about publishing the rules governing this sort of thing? Why not make the announcement at a press conference, rather than releasing or leaking the information to a few press outlets? How about having ASO step forward and explain the rules for when a team or rider is going to be fined, and for when a team will be required to leave the race?
Why is Liquigas still in the Tour? The only information we have is from Bob Roll, that Beltran’s quick and contrite expression of guilt saved the team. There is no official confirmation of this, and plenty of information out there to suggest that Roll is wrong.
One of the reasons why the ASO excluded the UCI from this year’s Tour is that the UCI was not up front with the information it had on Rasmussen. But the ASO is not being up front with us. The ASO announces (or leaks) that 10 riders had abnormal blood results at the start of the Tour, then we’re assured that this information was gathered merely to protect the riders’ health, then the information is used for targeted testing that’s led to Beltran’s expulsion. That’s not being straightforward with us. We have no clue today why Liquigas is still racing, or what a team has to do to remain in the race if one of its riders is busted for doping. That’s not being straightforward, either.
The ASO wants to do too much in secret, behind closed doors, and at its discretion. Astana cannot race, but Rabobank can. Boonen cannot race but Schumaker can (forgive my spelling; with the boycott, I’m not even supposed to know that these things are going on, let alone how to spell the names correctly). Cofidis leaves last year’s race, but Liquigas gets to stay. There are arguably good reasons for each decision, but we should not be left to guess at them. ASO should have rules published to guide their actions and limit their discretion.
Jean,
I agree that it’s unavoidable that these things are announced. I’m actually not criticizing that, what I’m criticizing is how the media cover that announcement. They often lapse into the assumption that the person is automatically guilty because of an A sample result, and often “forget” to mention that the person doesn’t have a case to answer unless the B sample comes back in agreement with the A or unless the rider confesses. Yes, it’s news when an A sample test implicates a rider, especially if the rider gets hauled in for questioning by the police and his team’s rooms get searched by the police. It’s how the media paints the picture of the overall situation that I’m critical of. They don’t do enough to give a balanced story, and to me, that’s shirking their responsibilities.
Jean C, Rant is focusing on the press and I’m focusing on the ASO. The ASO should announce these matters in press conferences, where they should stress that (1) a positive “A” test means that only half the lab procedures are complete, (2) no inference of guilt is fair or right at this point, and (3) the rider is being dismissed from the race only as a precaution.
The ASO should prove that, now that the UCI has been excluded, the race can be organized and managed better than before.
Larry,
I have already understood your boycott, and I will call your wife if you don’t stop it.
Schumacher’s case is different of Boonen. That happened month ago and his team already punished him. Should he be punished two times?
Liquigas is still on TDF because it seems that the agreement signed by teams protect teams against case similar as Moreni! I think it’s a good thing.
If in the following days it was discovered that Beltran had accomplice inside Liquigas, I have no doubt that they will be excluded and they will be punished by the fine.
Jean C, the only hope I have for continuing in the boycott is that my wife will not notice that the Tour is actually going on. Tomorrow being Bastille Day, I think it’s going to dawn on her that something is wrong.
Larry,
You could try telling your wife that the Tour was canceled. Not that she’ll buy that story, mind you. Oh well, all good things (even boycotts) must come to an end. 😉
Tomorrow’s stage may be very exciting. With the finish at Hautacam, the field could be well and truly shattered by the time the race is over. It will be interesting to see whether or not the maillot jaune changes hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Good day to break your boycott, if only in the interest of “domestic tranquility.” You could always resume the boycott once (or if) your wife forgets about Le Tour.
Larry:
Hang in there. While I am not personally 100% boycotting the Tour, I am paying far less attention to the racing itself. But I am depending on you to set the standard.
Rant and Jean:
Shame on you for trying to lure Larry from the path to enlightenment.
And Jean, since it is past midnight in France, Happy Bastille Day!
Rant —
?? Would that work?
Isn’t that a little like having sex on Monday, and resuming being a virgin on Tuesday?
So how come liquigas was not kicked out of the tour? astana can’t even start but a euro team that supports doping gets to stay in the tour? if the Garmin team or Columbia came up dirty, they whole team would have been tossed regardless of how huffy the team admin got. ole smelly gas should be tossed! the french are so two-faced.
William,
Sorry, I wasn’t really trying to lure Larry over to the dark side. 😉
Larry,
I don’t know if that would work or not. But, as one former teammate of mine used to say, there are times when the interest of domestic tranquility trumps other considerations. You could, of course, explain to your wife all about the boycott, and tell her that while you’re happy to support France on Bastille Day (I’m sure there are some very good French restaurants in your area, some with real French chefs even), you can’t break your boycott. She might even be supportive.
But I’d suggest breaking the news to her over a bottle of good French wine. Perhaps a bottle of Château Lafite-Rothschild might do the trick. It’s not quite as good as a bottle of the extremely rare Howlin’ Huskies Homebrew appellation, but it will do in a pinch. 😉
Larry –
I think – and I don’t want to use “undo” influence here – but French wife or not – the boycott must continue!
Think of the children! Larry – Think of the pets!
YES the pets! – NPR is reporting on the use of human psychotropic drugs – AND THESE ARE NOT EVEN “OFFICIAL GREYHOUNDS!” Doping is going to the dogs – Larry! It is spreading faster then coral reefs are dying!
You gonna let some French guy influence your determination? Again – I don’t want it described as “undue emotional pressure” – but I must say – if you do go this route – I shall have to reconsider my particular view of the fiber of your backbone!
At the moment – I am in apoplectic shock that of all people – Rant would EVEN HINT at encouraging you to stop with the boycott – but I do take into consideration that Rant has been “working with” his editor for over six months and this usually means he has been having to do a lot of “give and take” or to put it into editor talk – “cutting, cutting, cutting!”
Well – Larry – I find myself “reeling” – not only do I have to contend with the value drop of a human life going for around six point nine million dollars, which is a drop of almost a million before the price of a barrel raw crude went to the moon – Now I have to “worry” that the pernicious influence being directed in your general direction will cause you – to – to – I can’t even say it!
Larry – I have to stop now – I am just too emotionally overwhelmed!
Larry,
I don’t want to sound ungrateful, but I simply haven’t sat around doing nothing as a boycott domestique just so that our captain can abandon now that the stages are getting harder …
You’ve gotta pull it together man! For the team’s sake!
OK RobW, OK Morgan, OK William, I WILL hang in there.
It’s gonna be a tough day. “La Marseillaise” keeps going through my head, and every time it does I cry just like Humphrey Bogart’s jilted girlfriend in “Casablanca”.
“Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons!”
SOB!
Larry;
It will get better, as time goes by.
Larry,
Yesterday my wife asked me, “When does the Tour start this year?” I pretended to be ignoring her – I find that this never works, but I keep coming back to it, when she asks questions that I don’t want to answer. Finally I caved and informed her that yes the Tour had started. That clearly some French guy probably couldn’t be found within sniffing distance of the top twenty. And no doubt some teammate of Lance’s must have already been found guilty of eating little children.
So, I log on this morning and find that I had told the truth.
I have long contended that the biggest problem that cycling has made is treating doping as an unforgivable sin. The tests are imperfect, the definition of doping vague, and the potential unfair advantage that is created is unmeasurable. Which one of those statements is going to be cured in the foreseeable future? None. Therefore, what are we doing? 20-years ago Beltran would have been given a ten minute penalty.
For better or worse, as long as testing can’t be done instantaneously on the start line, how can anyone ever become indignant about justice and fair play? The riders will be able to medicate, and the testing system will fail. The expectations of the anti-doping crusaders are completely out of sync with what reality can deliver. More importantly they completely fail to see what is great about cycling – superhuman efforts, heroic achievements, glorious failures, and the depth of the human spirit and will. Beltran didn’t undermine any of those things. Floyd’s effort is no less remarkable even if I were to concede that he doped. He still rode away from the peloton (which we have little reason to believe was any “cleaner” than him), displayed amazing mental toughness and reflected the best of the human spirit.
William, ouch! I deserved that.
To quote Michael: “The expectations of the anti-doping crusaders are completely out of sync with what reality can deliver.” Wow. That’s absolutely correct and beautifully stated.